How will the Chevrolet Volt be better than a Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid?

Who's still bringing up the past? Those revised EPA estimates don't reflect real-world data anyway. My driving was mostly-highway back then, and I certainly didn't see that...

 

I'd like to argue sales. now that's ridiculous to a for-profit company. sarcasm.

 

To argue design is sensible.

To argue implementation with such a major difference in battery-capacity is ridiculous.

 

I was not arguing about what was said in the past, I was using the BSFC data for closest matching Atkison+HSD that exists to the 1.4L in the the Volt. If you have a BSFC chart for the Prius C, that would be interesting.

And your MPG numbers are atypical. Fuelly for the 2001/2002 and 2003 prius shows 42.6, 42.1 and 41.7 so not far from the EPA estimates.

 

If to argue design is sensible, then it is sensible to argue about design decisions such as Bigger Battery + less efficient ICE vs small battery + more efficient ICE is reasonable. Real world data seems to justify the GM decisions even if people here suggest they know more about it. Luckily, real world data allows one to reach the conclusion which is better overall.

However, for any particular personal driving scenario ether the Volt or the Prius could be the better match. Your Milage WILL vary.

 

Why are you arguing for just a single configuration?

 

I'm not, arguing for a single configuration. Why are you suggesting I am? Did you even read my posts or do you just skim for something to try to bash. The message just before your post said:

which is pretty clearly suggesting either design could be better for a particular driver.

This whole detailed discussion on design started when someone who seems to know little said, without any supporting evidence, that the Atkison+HSD would clearly be better. There may be some cases where it would be, but not in all cases.
And overall, the Volt design is proving to use less gas. We don't have sufficient data to draw a conclusion yet about MPGe for the Prius PHV to compare with the Volt's MPGe.

 

EPA said the same thing in that doc. You can not claim your Volt is powered by 100% clean electricity just because you are paying for Green Power electricity. You are supporting the development of cleaner grid so you ought to use the grid (or your state) average efficiency and CO2 emission.

Look, using EPA Beyond Tailpipe Emission calculator, Volt can be cleaner (190 vs 222 g/mi) than a 50 MPG Prius in the clean electricity states like New York and California. The electricity in those clean states are about 25 cents per kWh so you won't save money since Volt would take $3.23 per charge to drive 35 miles. This is the true cost of clean electricity and a valid claim of lower carbon footprint. If you consider the vehicle purchase cost, $19k Prius c gives the best bang for the buck without having to plug in.

However, in most states, Volt will have higher carbon footprint. For example, in Colorado where Dr.I lives, Volt would emit 330 gram of CO2 per mile. Paying a few more cents per kWh for Green Power electricity won't give the same bragging right, sorry. The national average for Volt is 260 g/mi, which is a step backward from Prius 222 g/mi especially for a smaller 4 seater car. If you are into highway speed EV driving experience and live in the clean electricity state, Volt can be a great choice. Leaf or other BEVs are even a better choice.

Prius PHV's national average CO2 gram/mile would be lower than 222 g/mi because it uses less electricity per mile (than Volt) and the gas engine maintains the same 50 MPG in a midsize. We'll have to see the exact number once EPA adds Prius PHV in the list.

 

Volt may use less gas but it uses more energy.

Volt uses two sources of energy. If it uses less gas, it would use more electricity. The overall design of Volt does not take account of average electricity production. It uses the electricity regardless of it's diminishing benefit.

 

In my experience, it is easier to exceed the EPA estimates for EV range and EV efficiency than it is to exceed the estimates for gasoline highway efficiency in the Volt. I can do 10-20% higher than the EPA 40 mpg estimate but I can do 20-35% better than the EV estimates most of the year. It looks like people are seeing similar results with the PiP in real world driving.

Electricity in CA is not 25 cents per kWh. The base rate for PG&E in Northern CA is 11-12 cents on the ordinary plan and then increases on a marginal tiered schedule based on how much extra power you buy per month. I lived until recently in a 2 floor, 3 bedroom house and used around 550-600 kWh (Volt charging included) which was around twice my base rate allocation. I was on a Time of Use plan and charged my car at night at a base rate price of around 5.5 cents per kWh and at 11 cents later in the billing month at my higher tier levels.

When comparing my electric bills before and after I started charging my Volt 1.5 years ago my effective cost for charging my car works out to around 10 cents per kWh on average. Homes that use substantially more power will enter higher tiers and pay more as will houses that use more power during daytime peak rates. Those owners can often compensate by adding solar panels to bring down their purchased power down to lower tier levels.

Rather than paying $3.23 per charge (for 35 EPA miles) I actually paid around $1.30 for 40-50 miles depending upon the time of year while charging using the 120V cord.

 

In the same document, the EPA also says:

So going by your interpretation, a company had a goal of 20% of their energy needs from green sources would not be able to by buying green power. Well they could, but would have to buy enough of it to bring their local grid mix to 20%.

Then there is this quote from the beyond tailpipe calculator:

It seems the EPA agrees that buying green power will reduce an individual's carbon emissions here, or does the could there mean they have also buy it for their neighbors in order to claim they've lowered their emissions.

So of the public fall below the average IQ score of the group, and could actually believe the green electricity they pay for is pumped directly to their house. So the EPA has to spell it out and head off the 'then why bother' with that paragraph. It doesn't cover how businesses, organizations, or individuals are to account their green versus non-green energy usage.

Dr. I's Volt very well may have had some coal electrons charge it, but he, and we, aren't paying for the electrons coming out of the outlet. Electricity isn't water. With water we pay the ultility to move water from one place to our house. With electricity we are paying for its generation. By paying for green energy generation, Dr. I's share of the energy he uses from the grid is green.

Going back to the tailpipe calculator. Is the data it uses up to date? There was a recent article on how the percentage of coal electric production has dropped. Has that been incorporated into the calculator yet? That's EV's advantage, their emissions improve(or decline) with the grid. It's even possible for a person to make their own power at home. The Prius with its wonderfully low 222g/mi will still be producing that 10 years from now. It is more likely that it will go up as we need to use more and more energy intensive recoverable crude though.

Finally, some people don't care about carbon, or at least they don't give it the priority you do. Reducing the influence of oppressive, non-democratic regimes over the US and the world through oil production has a higher priority for them.

 

+1
While carbon emmissions is important to me, reducing imported gasoline is as well.
The data from the tailpipe calculator appears to come from 2010:

from Information about the Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations

I am thinking the eGRID2010 is referring to the year 2010, not positive though. I expect it will be updated at some point.

edit- did some more digging, apparently the eGRID2010 uses 2007 data!

I expect the amount of tar sands oil from canada is actually going up as a percentage. Most likely all gas burning cars got a bit dirtier this year, and will continue to do so as long as the tar sands remain profitable.

 

The data in eGRID2010 is based on data from 2007 compiled in 2010 and released in 2011. That's just how the government labels things. The old data distorts things a little, but there are other problems with using it as your only requirement to compare energy is quite bad.

All forms of energy are not equal. If we are generating from biogas which is more expensive than natural, the generation actually reduces pollution by burning more harmful hydrocarbons. In many places coal or nuclear will be run at night whether it is needed or not. Wind gets curtailed if there is not enough demand, and this is usually at night.

The biggest thing is that gasoline in and of it self is using a scarce resource that must be imported. Most of us would much rather use sun or wind or biomass than oil to fuel our vehicles, but simply talking about energy use or ghg does not apply any of that cost. Domestic natural gas is a great substitute for oil in our fleet too, especially when its burned in an over 50% efficient combined cycle power plant.

The DOE for cafe purposes where it applies cost to the type of energy used, weights a gallon of gasoline at over 80 kwh.

Since this is about one phev versus another phev, I would assume drivers of these vehicles would rather use electricity than gasoline, other wise they would have bought an efficient gasoline only vehicle like the regular prius liftback or prius c.

 

I did not clam my volt is powered by 100% clean electricity, my volt is powered by the battery at times and gas at other times.

And while you might not like it, but EPA does say you can "claim" the impact of green power.
Making Environmental Claims | Green Power Partnership | US EPA
Thus I can legally say I'm paying for 100% renewable power and I am reducing my carbon footprint by the amount needed for driving my Volt.

The point in the other document is explain about what we are paying for, even if the electrons never flow directly to me, we are paying extra to building of a cleaner grid.

 

yes.. egrid is using older data, it missing the significant increase in renewables (especially wind) since 2007, and the increase in natural gas as a source compared to coal (which in 2011 was down to 39% )

 

Talk about a play on words. O.K., lets' rephrase the question: Are you charging your Volts' battery using the municipal grid?

You may "claim" you are paying for 100% renewable power, but that needs to be supported by:

- Certification of 100% Renewable Power

- Signed Affadavit attesting to the above by the renewable power generation plant to you, the end user.

DBCassidy

 

Hey DB,

Here is the idea. If you use the power of your pocket to add wind to the grid, and marginally the grid adds that much power from wind, than your money offset your energy with that wind power. Its pretty simple. Now my wind contract tells me plainly that the power is added to the grid, they don't only ship me the extra wind. I pay for maintenance of the grid and the other power plants as my fees. I am on a smart grid, but they don't actually pump the power from my wind turbines to my air conditioner. In my case the wind purchase had a multiplier effect. I bought wind early, which caused the utility to offer more, and more people added wind. In essence my marginal purchase caused even more wind to be added to the grid.

That is why the EPA says that if you go into one of these programs or add pv solar, you can claim the renewable energy use. Your marginal impact on the grid is wind or solar.

Now there are some programs out there where the utility would need to add that renewable anyway, or it gets double counted. These programs tend to lower the cost of adding the renewables to other members on the grid, but don't actually add anything. In certain places you simply can't add more. In texas today, until grid improvements happen, wind addions are slowed, but the people purchasing wind have voted with our money to upgrade the grid. This will allow more people to buy and use wind in the future. Because of some of the bad programs, you should check with your utilities to see if they are actually adding the power. Locally, solar added just gets counted against the solar the utility is mandated to add, but there are heavy subsidies as individuals adding solar is less expensive than the utility doing it.

Electrons are fungible. In states with choice and good regulation, choosing renewables does add that power to the grid.

 

And in that respect, Volt beats Prius Plug- in.

 

Dr. Innovation, I have a different question about green electricity, which is this:
If you charge your vehicle in the middle of the night, isn't it green electricity no matter how it's generated? This electricity is simply a vast amount of idle power, which is generated whether its consumed or not. All heat and hydro-based electricity generation occurs 24/7, they can't cool off the plants in the middle of the night, can they?

I read that EV's charged off-peak could displace 71% of the fuel consumption of every passenger vehicle in America, without adding any transmission lines or new plants. This power is literally waste energy, and nothing is more green than putting this otherwise wasted power to good use. Wringing our hands over whether it was generated with sunshine or dirty coal misses the point: Nighttime charging is green charging.

 

I am charging my Volt using the power at my house which is contracted with my energy supplier as green power. I'm paying for all of my power to be renewable and, by colorado law, they have to be able to, during any audit including a court request, to prove they have the unique renewable energy certificates to back that up. That is part tof why I cited an "dated" document about CO law in my earlier post. The document may be dated, but I don't believe any new laws supersede them. In most of the country, if your provider offers you green power in blocks ( or offers REC credits or some other type of green power), they are legally obligated to provide them. And groups like GreenE and others do check on them, so regular customers don't have to.

If you want to read more about consumer protection for those buying green power, check out the EPA site
Green Power Network: News Release and
Green Power Network: Consumer Protection

Most states have followed that guideline and consumers can purchase green power with a reasonable level of confidence they are getting the impact for which they are paying. In my case I have the added knowledge my co-op already install some of its own renewable generation capacity with its fees, and will hopefully be expanding again next year. Interesting, renewable is the only generation capacity my power company owns. They buy the majority of their power from others making it very easy for them to meet renewable requirements as needed.